About your Search

20121128
20121128
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
rice was thrown under the bus and they all knew she didn't have the information from the cia. then i thought you would have to feel sorry for her. since yesterday talking to some of those to whom she talked i'm convinced in my mind that she is part of the coverup, she knew all the time the cia information that was given to her. but your point is very good. i could not support her in the secretary of state if she is nominated. bill: give me a reason why. >> she is on the wrong side of the membership of the u.n. palestinian authority. she is on the opposite side of where i am. she has kept on funding you necessary cowhich is in violation of instructions given to her through law. she is on the opposite side of every issue that i am. for that reason i would have opposed her anyway. bill: it appears to me and many others when we listen to folks like yourself talk that this issue is much bigger than susan rice. let me drill down on one area here. because yesterday the cia acting director at 10:00 a.m. apparently blamed the fbi for changing the language and the guidance and the talking poin
today knowing how they met with the acting director of the cia and ambassador rice. >> senator mccain walked away from that meeting with ambassador rice and acting cia director michael morrell with a sense that at the time of ambassador rice infamous sunday show appearances there was xheling evidence including statements by libyan and some americans that proved there was never a demonstration by a mob mad about a movie. for her heart rice is describing her meeting with the lawmakers like this. she says we explained the talking points by the intelligence community and initial assessment on which it was based were incorrect there was no protest or demonstration in benghazi. while we certainly wish we had perfect information just days after the terrorist attack as is often the case the ingenls assessment has evolved. she said to the lawmakers yesterday neither she nor any one in the obama administration intended to mislead any of the american people at any stage in the process. she is set to tell her story to two more republican senators today. ainsley? >>> thank you, peter. we are going
-up. she knew all the time the cia information that was given to her. >> reporter: senators graham, mccain and ayotte tellingers after yesterday's meeting that the information let them more disturbed and not reassured about rice's benghazi comments that which portrayed the a tack as a demonstration that spun out of control. cia director mike morrell with rice for the meetings initially told her the cia references to dropped in the talking points at the request of the fbi because the bureau did not want to compromise a ongoing criminal investigation. later cia officials called back to correct the record that in fact it was the agency was responsible. there was never any intention to mislead on benghazi rice said in a written statement, the talking points provided by the intelligence community and initial assessment were incorrect in a key respect. there was no protest or demonstration in benghazi. that the white house previousing spokesman jay carney tried to put the focus on the current investigation and not ambassador rice's people are moe interested in talking points for a sunday sho
that caused a problem. it was the acting cia director michael murrell who went with her to this meeting with the three republican senators, told them that it was actually the fbi that changed the unclassified talking points that susan rice used and then really made them mad about that. then hours later called back and said, never mind. we were wrong. so they didn't even -- he didn't even have his facts right in that meeting, which really adds fuel to the fire here. >> okay. and not picking on susan rice but i have to lay this by you. i mean, isn't it part rice's personality the editor at large of foreign policy magazine describes rice this way, quote, she's not easy. i'm not sure i'd want to take her on a picnic with my family, but if the president wants her to be secretary of state, she'll work hard. this is from a reuters article. so is it in part that senators aren't used to dealing with a person -- i mean, susan rice just comes out and kind of says things. she's blunt. she's not charming, warm, etcetera. >> or maybe some might say diplomatic which you need for the role of secretary
." in a report requested by the c.i.a., the national research council wrote this year that -- quote -- "while climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict." and back to 2006, the center for naval analysis, a federally funded research and development center that's advised the navy and marine corps since 1942, convened a military advisory board of retired three star and four-star admirals and asked them to support on the threat of security on climate change. the report state that had quo question while uncertainty exists regarding the future extent of predicted climate change, the trends are clear. the nature and pace of climate change is being observed today pose grave implications for our national security. and of course, as the presiding officer knows, in the five years since, the evidence has tracked the worst of those climate change projections, not the most gentle. our nation's top military strategists, nation's top researchers, national research council and national academy of sciences all have recommended that our national security
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5